how?

Christian

Christian

Member
What i am continuously asking myself while reading the news about RED is, how the bloody hell those guys are capable of building a camera like this and even lenses for THAT price!
What I am asking myself is, why does a Carl Zeiss Digiprime cost as much as a car and how can the RED 300mm Tele Lense for 5000$ have the same optical quality as Zeiss' does?
How can they offer a Camera for 17000$ While Arri's D20 costs a lot more, and how could I believe that knowledge that comes from 100years Experience of Arri's research and development can be beaten by those RED guys?

Please don't misunderstand me, I highly appreciate, what they do and how they do it, but I still can't belive it.

And please excuse me if this was answered somewhere else, but i searched and didn't find it.
 
Last edited:
It is answered somewhere else, in economics classes. Learn the concepts of Supply and Demand curves (especially when demand is very low) and additionally the idea of Prestige Pricing. Combine this with a history lesson of what very rich men are capable of if they really want something bad enough (see a pre-crazy Howard Hughes who's inventions in aviation still fly us all).
 
Hmm, which gets me thinking. Jim, don't go crazy like Hughes. I'd hate to be telling my kids about the great Jim Jannard who changed the world of cinema and have them say "But daddy, you mean the crazy guy who walks around in tissue boxes muttering about color fidelity?"
 
I've been asking myself the very same things and I have made some conclusions that work for me :) One, the price: There's two ways to sell a product. Either you sell at a high price to few people carrying around alot of cash... Or... you sell at a lower price to many... Thing about digtal cameras is that they are in constant development... So nobody really wants to buy a camera because next week something better will come along.. That's why panavision and so on only rent out their reallly high end cameras.

Now RED on the other hand are thinking ahead. They have a camera that is future proof. It can be modified in any shape and attach gadgets and so forth. It's a little like lego:) This means that alot of people are interested in actually buying it. So lowering the price and mass production is good alternative for RED.

And let's not forget the 4k resolution. Now that digtial projectors are hitting the cinemas countries are working on a cinema standard. It looks to be 2k and 4k. That means the highest resolution you can ever view your material is at 4k. And considering the price of changing cinemas to digital projection, I don't think we'll see a change there in ages. This makes Red even more future proof...

As for Arri's and Sony's advangage with experience and research, the only explanation would be that while Arri is business oriented at this point, Red is going for a revolution. Instead of watering out technology giving the people alittle at a time, Red is jumping forward giving us their best from the start.

Also, there's no such thing as 100 years of experience with HD....
 
The exponential development we've seen in the electronics industry over the last few decades has finally brought us to a point where huge amounts of processing power, storage, etc. are cheap. This means digital acquisition is practical.

When acquisition required buying large amounts of film stock, there was really no point in cheap cameras (though a few low-cost 35mm cameras do exist), because no matter how cheap the camera was, anyone using it had to spend a small fortune on film. In other words, a cheap camera still wouldn't enable people without lots of money to make movies, and therefore probably wouldn't sell many more units than an expensive camera.

In the digital world, with no need to pay for film, making the camera cheaper actually does allow people without a lot of money to make movies. This means that potentially, if you bring down the cost of the camera significantly, you can sell many more units. This lets you do larger production runs, and spread your R&D costs around more, greatly reducing your per-unit production costs.

Companies like Arri and Panavision, with their digital products, are still targeting their traditional markets, consisting of a small number of customers with deep pockets. If it has occurred to them that digital acquisition could potentially allow them to reach far wider markets, they've decided not to pursue that strategy.

RED is pursuing that strategy with a vengeance with the camera. This also lets them price their lenses, etc. far more aggressively, because their camera pricing will create a much larger market for all of that stuff as well.
 
Christian said:
What i am continuously asking myself while reading the news about RED is, how the bloody hell those guys are capable of building a camera like this and even lenses for THAT price!...
Click to expand...

Maybe what you should be asking yourself is why isn't everyone else offering their products for this price?

Solid state electronics has demonstrated for decades you can make complex technology for very little cost. Other than a few buttons, the Red One itself has no moving parts. Red will make a profit from their Cameras.

As for lenses, Red isn't claiming their lenses are equal to Zeiss and they're not pricing them the same either.
 
It's all guessonomics.

Without the inside 411; it's all supposition.

The only certainty is that Jim didn't become a billionaire by being obtuse. He wanted to make a camera; he felt there was a viable "profitable" market out there for his camera. He spent the lettuce and put a group of highly motivated people together to make the camera...

We'll see if it achieves it's specs and subsequent market predictions by RED's team (I'm sure there've been bean counters making forecasts) Hopefully, the 1000 + reservations is indicative of a viable market and profit percentage for the RED team.

To be honest, the only way we'll know that RED has achieved comparables to Sony, Arri, Thomson, and Panavision is when the camera is in the field, and the support paradigms are behind the camera...
:beer::beer:


RED# optimistically cautious
 
I know the cost of red is far below the $17.5 mark, I was building a raw camera at one point. so, yes he will make a good profit, and no it's really not that hard to make, you must hire people that know FPGA design and how to connect them with all the I/O and processors. I'ts not someone that would know anything about shooting or film. I think this is part of the reason it has not been done. such a small group of people that shoot motion pictures and not a one that is professional in motion picture and FPGA, CMOS, hard disk, flash ram, design!


At one point I was talking with a Company that would have made a RED like camera for $100,000 for the R and D of it...as you can see I did not have the 100,000 to give them. and even then what if they screwed up and I need an extra 50k to finish....etc etc etc
 
shawneous said:
Hmm, which gets me thinking. Jim, don't go crazy like Hughes. I'd hate to be telling my kids about the great Jim Jannard who changed the world of cinema and have them say "But daddy, you mean the crazy guy who walks around in tissue boxes muttering about color fidelity?"
Click to expand...

Other than the bugs crawling all over my skin at night... I'm OK. heheh.

We have had many come to the "O" and comment that they have never been to a company where everyone was so excited and having so much fun. Then the question, "what are you guys doing so different to create this?" My stock answer is, "what are the other guys doing wrong?"

Don't worry about me. I keep LOTS of bug spray around at all times. Poor Howard.

Jim
 
Part is economies of scale, the other part is the genius of a successful business man*. I don't know if you remember recently when Sony saw theirselves in difficulties with the iPod sales, they hired a successful welsh manager (Howard Stringe) as their CEO coming from a different arena (CBS) -- why?

* -- JFYI to those who have been asking why and so many customers have been adding their interest on RED, the first time I heard about Jim I understood who he was and how he could change this industry's sector.

So, sorry mate but it isn't necessary to search such reasons so obvious they are.

Otherwise, "the others" aren't interested to damage their own profits. Panavision, for instance, is a manufacturer (camera and lenses) but doesn't sell, just rents -- again: why? Is it necessary any more answers?
 
Last edited:
Business is really not rocket science. 1st- make something that people really want. 2nd- do it with a few smart guys, not an army. 3rd- make sure you sell it for more than you can make it for. 4th- keep your marketing expenses low. 5th- sell enough to more than cover your NRE. 6th- Have fun. It's contageous. Life is good. Enjoy every moment. Business 101.

Jim
 
you rock it Jim, I want to meet you some day. love your outlook

maybe one day I will have you over when we finish our first film on the RED. may have to come to your place to show it on 4k though!!
 
Part of the reason the lens doesn't cost as much as a car is partly because it's not necessarily as good.

It's almost as good. But it's not as good. It's always that last 1% in quality that drives up the price. It's the same way in any endeauvor, especially VFX. I could deliver 99% of what I do for 40% the cost.
 
Last edited:
Obin,

One day Jarred will arrange a party-appointment for all of us -- RED supporters with the presence of the Leader of the Rebellion.

im.thatoneguy said:
Part of the reason the lens doesn't cost as much of a car is because is partly because it's not necessarily as good.

It's almost as good. But it's not as good. It's always that last 1% in quality that drives up the price. It's the same way in any endeauvor, especially VFX. I could deliver 99% of what I do for 40% the cost.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's also one of these secrets. To maximize the rapport.
 
We are not in the business to sell inferior products. Don't be fooled by the prices of our lenses any more than the price of the RED ONE.

Jim
 
Jim any chance for a set of RED primes in our future? Also, I do hope you open up the reservation system again for the lenses. I do need both, but i am holding out to see the prices on the rest of the RED accessories. I am going for a full set of the new zeiss zf for my immediate needs...

Thank you for a hopeful reply...
 
Keep in mind that a mature company like Arri has alot of mouths to feed.
They not only have all their own employees, with all the taxes and beni's to pay. They have a dealer network all needing to get a cut to pay their financial obligations as well. Right now Red has very little marketing costs aside from sending the team to trade shows. They have little sales overhead due to a direct sales model. They do have their office and development staff to pay but that's not anywhere near the financial burden Arri, Sony, etc. are under.
 
We are considering (don't count this as an announcement) a full set of T1.9 primes. We just need to make sure there is enough of a market for them.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
We are not in the business to sell inferior products. Don't be fooled by the prices of our lenses any more than the price of the RED ONE.

Jim
Click to expand...

Well I never assumed that ;-)
Just wanted to know the "how"! Now I do.:dankk2:

Too bad that I live in germany, will be pretty hard to catch a first look, if it's available somewhere in the states (e.g. at NAB):crybaby:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top